Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik has what he considers a pretty common-sense proposal: If people are going to buy firearms at gun shows at the Tucson Convention Center, they ought to have to pass a background check.
“We’re going to require a background check on every purchase made at gun shows that occur on city property, including person-to-person sales,” Kozachik said. “The only way we can affirm whether or not a purchase is legal is to do a background check.”
The City Council is scheduled to take up Kozachik’s proposal at what promises to be lively study session next Tuesday, Feb. 5. If the council moves forward with the plan, the city will be testing the legal limits of how background checks can be done under federal and state law.
The so-called “gun show loophole”—which allows the sale of any kind of legal firearm to anyone, with no background check, if the seller is not a federally licensed firearms dealer—has long been a thorny question. Republican Sen. John McCain introduced legislation in 2001 to require background checks at gun shows, but he couldn’t muster support to get it out of the Senate.
As federal law now stands, only federally licensed firearms dealers are required to do background checks when they sell firearms. Unlicensed dealers, whether they sell dozens of weapons at gun shows, peddle firearms on the Internet or just sell an old shotgun to a neighbor, don’t have to perform background checks. In fact, they can’t do background checks because they don’t have access to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, a national database that contains the names of people who can’t own guns.
The City Council tried to force all gun show sales to go through background checks back in 2001, but ultimately abandoned the idea after state lawmakers amended state law in an effort to thwart the city.
Kozachik first riled up some of Tucson’s Second Amendment enthusiasts with a program that allowed people to turn over old guns in exchange for Safeway gift cards earlier this month. (Last week, a group of Republican state lawmakers, including Rep. Adam Kwasman of Oro Valley, introduced legislation that blocks future buybacks by requiring that guns surrendered to cities and towns be resold to gun dealers.)
Kozachik is diving right back into the fight with his call to require that anyone who buys a firearm at a TCC gun show undergo a background check.
Kozachik believes the city is on solid legal ground if it requires background checks as part of the lease to use the TCC, even though state law prohibits cities and towns from enacting gun regulations that are more strict than state law.
He doesn’t want Tucson police to be involved in doing the background check; instead, he said it should be the responsibility of the person selling the weapon.
“They can work that out with the people doing the lease on the show or work it out with someone who has a license,” Kozachik said. “That’s their problem, how they achieve it.”
Todd Rathner, an NRA board member who fought the city’s proposal for background checks a decade ago, said requiring person-to-person background checks is complicated—and warned it might run counter to state law.
“This has been discussed over and over again,” Rathner said. “Federal law doesn’t allow a dealer to just set up and do a background check. And the cops can’t do it. I don’t know if that’s going to be part of the discussion or not, but they’re just spinning their wheels.”
City Attorney Mike Rankin said the city can require background checks as part of the lease, according to a 2002 Arizona Court of Appeals decision that backed up the city’s legal right to require the checks, based on its right to manage its property as it sees fit.
Rankin conceded that the Arizona Legislature has changed the law since that decision in an effort to limit the city’s ability to require the background checks, but he said “those changes don’t override our charter authority, which comes from the (Arizona) Constitution and not from the Legislature.”
Rankin “wouldn’t be surprised” if the city was taken to court by gun show organizers or the NRA if the council votes to require the background checks next week, but Kozachik said he wasn’t afraid of a lawsuit.
“Let them sue us,” Kozachik said. “If these guys want to make the argument that it’s a good thing for someone to walk up to somebody on the street, give them a pile of cash and walk off with a gun—if they want to make that argument, go ahead and make it. They will lose that in a court of law, they will lose that in the court of public opinion, and they will even further alienate themselves from being able to have a reasonable conversation about this issue in the community.”
But Rathner warned that even if the city could require background checks on person-to-person gun sales, there are still legal wrinkles. Federally licensed firearms dealers only have access to the NICS database when they are selling a weapon, so if an unlicensed dealer wanted to ask a licensed dealer to do a background check, the licensed dealer would have to buy the gun from the unlicensed dealer. The licensed dealer would then do a background check to ensure the buyer was not a prohibited possessor.
Rathner offered this what-if scenario: Suppose the buyer doesn’t pass the background check. The gun now legally belongs to the licensed dealer. And it’s possible, when he tries to sell it back to the unlicensed dealer, that that person might not pass a background check either, leaving the licensed dealer stuck with the firearm.
“Now the dealer has a legal issue where he can’t transfer the gun to either person,” Rathner said.
Kozachik said convoluted scenarios like that are another example of why the federal law on background checks needs reform.
“That’s the tangled web you weave for yourself when you continue to consider these things untouchable community assets, as Todd Rathner calls them,” Kozachik said. “These guys tangle themselves up in these rules because they won’t engage in a rational conversation about this stuff, and then they claim the rules are too much of a mess and you can’t do anything about them.”
Kozachik is certainly right about one thing: Background checks are popular with the public. A recent New York Times/CBS poll showed that an overwhelming 92 percent of those surveyed supported universal background checks for anyone who wants to purchase a gun. A Reuters/Ipsos poll put support for universal background checks at 86 percent.
When President Barack Obama released his legislative agenda on firearms earlier this month, the plan called for much broader background checks: “Congress should pass legislation that goes beyond just closing the ‘gun show loophole’ to require background checks for all firearm sales, with limited, common-sense exceptions for cases like certain transfers between family members and temporary transfers for hunting and sporting purposes.”
Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly, who recently launched the political action committee Americans for Responsible Solutions to push for ways to reduce gun violence, put background checks at the top of their agenda.
“We think that part of the responsibility of being a gun owner is to have a background check before you purchase a gun,” Kelly told the Weekly. “I bought a gun from Walmart a few months ago. I had to fill out some paperwork and I had to stand there for about 30 minutes. If that’s what all responsible gun owners must do to prevent criminals or the mentally ill from having easy access to firearms, well, I think that’s what we need to do.”
At the other end of the spectrum, some gun advocates consider background checks useless. Charles Heller, the spokesman for the gun-rights organization Arizona Citizens Defense League, said the checks “don’t work.”
Heller argued that the Tucson shooter and other mass-murderers have passed background checks and acquired guns legally.
“The whole idea of a background check is so stupid,” Heller said. “They simply do not prevent crime. And if you can’t pass a background check, look at what happened with (Newtown, Conn., shooter Adam) Lanza. That just shows you what gun laws do—they’ll just go steal one and kill somebody to get their gun. Bad people are criminals or they’re crazy and you’re not going to stop them from getting guns. The only thing you can do is stop them at the scene of the crime.”
But as a push for tighter gun laws moves to center stage in Washington, some Republican lawmakers aren’t ruling out tighter background checks. Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona, who was sworn into office earlier this month, is willing to consider reforms to the background-check laws.
Flake spokeswoman Genevieve Rozansky told the Weekly via email that Flake “has always believed that guns should be kept out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. He is open to the discussion of broader background checks.”
Congressman Raul Grijalva called the Obama administration’s push for universal background checks on all gun sales “essential.” But Grijalva admitted that passing legislation to require background checks on every single gun sale was unlikely.
“Is that what’s going to end up happening? Probably not,” Grijalva said. “But the universality of it makes sense and it’s the broadest way to close that loophole at gun shows.”
Rathner said last week that the NRA didn’t yet have a position on background-check reform because there wasn’t a specific legislative plan to discuss. But he said that creating a universal background check where every gun transfer is monitored by the government is, in sheer practical terms, a complex challenge.
“It’s not as simple as people think it is because of how the system works,” Rathner says. “Do you really want people to be able to do background checks on each other? For private citizens to be able to transfer firearms between each other, there would have to be a federal database. … And a national registry is a privacy issue.”
Congressman Ron Barber, the former Giffords aide who was shot twice in the Tucson shooting rampage, has said that he supports universal background checks. But he concedes that the question of whether to extend background checks to all person-to-person gun transfers is a tall order.
“I don’t know what exemptions we’ll have when we get to the legislation, but I think you have to be realistic about it, about the grandfather who passes a gun along to his grandson, or the neighbor who sells to his neighbor,” Barber says. “Pawn shops are required to be licensed and gun shops are required to be licensed and I think that anyone who sells in the public arena needs to be licensed and do background checks. I don’t know about the neighbor-to-neighbor buy yet. We’ll have to think that through.”
This article appears in Jan 31 – Feb 6, 2013.
Apparently no one in politics has heard of the Privacy Act, Fifth Amendment, Second Amendment or the multitude of Federal laws regarding firearm purchases that law enforcement chooses to ignore.
The Feds could just “ALLOW” private citizens to access the same system that Licensed Dealers have to now, problem solved. All it does anyway is create a paper trail to trace the gun, “AFTER” a crime, the Feds do not go after the people who fail the Background Checks, IE ” A Felon trying to buy a gun”.
When a Dealer calls in a Background check, they do not learn anything about the person personally, just a Yes or No or maybe, about if they can purchase a Firearm.
The reason why most gun owners see this a an infringement of their rights is because the law will be ineffectual on crime and therefore just a burden on taxpayers and gun owners. Most of us are for action that works.
It makes NO sense to me whatsoever to focus our attention on a source of firearms where 1% (or less) of them were used in a crime.
What amazes me is the lack of accurate research that has been performed regarding violent crime. Everyone, on both sides, are quoting different numbers without quoting the sources, and referring to the actual study so it can be independently verified by we, the people. They are having to quote studies performed in the 1990s that in many cases are isolated to a particular area. We have the capability to interview EVERY criminal in incarceration for a gun crime and find out exactly where they got their guns. It can be done in three months. We do not need to interview a few hundred or a thousand in an geographically or culturally isolated area, and then make assumptions based on those low numbers. Why not? Perhaps we really don’t want to know the answers (doesn’t fit our agenda for attention or funds). Another thing that hampers research is the way people twist statistics to suit their agendas. For example alcohol “related” accidents. Alcohol related is usually not defined and varies from state to state. It does not mean that the driver(s) was (were) impaired. It could mean the driver had a glass of wine with dinner or that there was an unopened six pack in the car. The same applies with “in possession with a firearm” or “aggravated.” These terms do not mean that the firearms (or weapons) were used, used to threaten, or brandished. It simply means the person was in possession of a firearm during the arrest. This research needs to be performed by independent researchers that do not know the source of their funds. I have been involved in research where pressure from the client has forced the researchers to “skew” the results in order to “satisfy the client.”
One thing I will agree with the NRA about. We need action that WORKs. Every time someone is hurt by a gun, we gun owners have to defend our rights to purchase, own, and sell our firearms. We also need fringe tolerance. Meaning that there will always be crime. No time in history has mankind been able to suppress it EVEN in prisons! The recently stated concept that EVEN IF ONE LIFE is saved it is worth the effort, is a ridiculous statement. IF THIS WERE TRUE we would immediately stop high school football, that has killed TWICE AS MANY children as are murdered by guns. (I am NOT advocating the removal of guns or football).
For football deaths, see Frederick O. Mueller, Annual Survey of Football Injury Research: 1931-2001, National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research (February 2002) at http://www.unc.edu/depts/nccsi/SurveyofFootballInjuries.htm. For school firearms murders, see Dr. Ronald D. Stephens, “School Associated Violent Deaths,” The National School Safety Center Report (June 3, 2002) at http://www.NSSC1.org. In addition to the 22 murders which occurred on school property or at school-sponsored events, there were another two shooting deaths which were accidents and twelve which were suicides.
When my father passed away, I was 58. My mother (then 85, living in a doublewide trailer in Omak, Washington) would have had to pay approximately $400.00 for those guns. My mother died last year and my brother and I would have to pay about $400.00 to transfer those firearms. That would be $800 in taxes for some antique firearms, a JC Higgins 22 pistol (that we remember Grandpa using to kill a rattler in the yard in Alabama) , 4 lever action rifles (including the first one I shot in 1954), and some single action pistols. These types of firearms have never been used in a crime such as mass shootings, and they went to law abiding citizens both who are veterans and one with a Q security Clearance.
I don’t transfer many guns. I sometimes trade them at a cowboy action shoot for another type of gun with performance characteristics that I desire, but that is from one gun owner to another. Background checks there would be only a tax and a waste of time in those cases. I have NEVER been approached by someone I don’t know, saying something to the effect of: “hey, got any guns for sale?” Have you?
MOST of the private transfers are performed in this manner.
Firearms inherited in conditions much like mine and will do nothing to reduce crime and everyone who dies passes their guns on. That is a lot of needless background checks.
Because they want to force me to pay a FFL dealer $25 so I can sell my gun to somebody else. Make it free and as long as I dont have to tell what kind it is, they got a deal.
But because they do not force employers to use Everify why should I have to perform back ground checks?
One more thing, a co-worker of mine was refuse to be sold a gun, with a little research with the FBI, he found out his SSN was used to buy a gun in another state that was used in a crime. The FBI cleared him but they never notified him about it or removed it from his record even though a significant amount of time went by. When asked why was not removed from his record he was basically told it will happen soon, kind of like the checks in the mail.
Gun control is not about controlling guns, its about controlling YOU.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/joe-biden-gun-laws_n_2595379.html
It seems to me that anyone arguing that background checks are not feasible for sales of guns among individuals is actually furthering the argument for requiring a license to own and operate a gun. A background check could easily be part of the process of obtaining a renewable license to operate a gun (passing a short class covering safe operation and use would be an obvious addition). Then anyone holding a current license should be able to walk into a gun shop or show and buy a gun without the thirty minute wait since the license is proof of having passed the background check.
We already register our cars and get renewable licenses to operate them. We also license many other aspects of our lives. Most professionals, from contractors to engineers to lawyers and doctors, must pass some sort of test and obtain a license or registration to work; all miners take a three to five day safety training (which must be renewed annually) before they can start working and take additional training throughout the year; even recreational scuba divers need to pass a class and get registered in order to rent their oxygen tanks. I don’t understand the objection to registering and licensing guns.
Just as we have different tiers for drivers’ and pilots’ licenses, gun operators could get different kinds of licenses depending on the intended use. For example, instead of a general renewable license, a proficient and frequent operator could seek a hunter’s license (for those willing to restrict the kinds of guns they buy and use to a list of guns frequently used for hunting and/or target practice), or a much broader collector’s license (with provisions for more frequent buying and trading of guns).
The argument about privacy just doesn’t have legs, especially in this day when new phones and new automobiles have GPS units which track information that can be obtained by police. (Hmmm, I wonder what the gun buyers would say to a GPS tracking device in all new guns instead of licensing?)
I agree that the strong arguments deriding the usefulness of background checks furthers the argument of requiring licenses for owning and/or operating firearms. But, skipping past discussion of the mess of federal, state and local confusion over what kinds and levels of restrictions legally or practically can or ought be made on the Second Amendment, and sliding around how licensing ownership requires widespread inspection of housing and other properties to actually effect a decrease in criminal or looney use of firearms, I think that firearms owners and possessors should be required to have gunsafes and be required to participate in serious training in possession and handling of weapons.
I believe that investment in maintaining and handling any weapons has been and is being frequently blown off. Law enforcement agencies have better training, but still often neglect to start or maintain what would get their people home safely, and a majority of gun-possessors, whether upright citizens or various criminals blow-off training. What and how such safekeeping and skill practice is to be encouraged or enforced is discussable.
I also think that those who are uninterested in owning firearms, and those who oppose general or even particular civilian ownership of such, should help pay for safekeeping and training. Why? Because the vast majority of those people are as guilty as many gun-possessors of choosing to spend much of life in mutual-reassurance instead of building safe and healthy neighborhoods and communities.
The Tucson Weekly has published several repeat stories on one neighborhood where a kid was shot, where many people must know exactly who did it, but nobody was coming forward. For large-scale, see how a Chicago woman has started a campaign to get people to snitch on the murderers. Chicago, and all the other large cities, have plenty of violence and plenty of “social activists”. Much good progress has been done, but really, people there on many opposite sides have been comfortable with symbolic actions, often done by somebody else, and relayed to make comfy-womfy feelings that substitute for getting off rear-ends in mass numbers.
One specific example of how to help is for people to organize more (far more) voluntary respite care for parents. Larger organizations could more easily back people up, there might be classes held, with regular practice and discussion of how to parent, and widespread presence and practice would be more useful to problematic homes, such as in Newtown. Yes, I am accusing the majority of the population, whether they label themselves progressive or conservative, of abeting mass killing.
Thank you for your time, Aaron F Johnson.